Following an uproar over a new target practice game for iOS from the National Rifle Association, Apple has changed its App Store age rating from a benign "4+" to "12+" for "Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence." The updated rating may seem more appropriate than the original rating, but some critics feel the game itself should be banned from the App Store altogether.

NRA: Practice Range, as we noted Tuesday of this week, focuses on using guns to shoot inanimate targets. Some opponents argued that the timing of the release was a bad idea considering the politically charged discourse surrounding the recent Sandy Hook school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. Others felt that—despite the game's frequent references to responsible gun use—the original App Store rating of "4+" or "no objectionable content," went too far.

"According to the NRA, the app is intended for children as young as age four," Gizmodo wrote earlier this week. "It's really just a point-and-shoot game, but the fact that it's meant for kids is straight up stupid."

Though the NRA declined to comment on the situation, the group likely wasn't trying to suggest the app was "intended for children as young as age four." After all, the age ranges associated with App Store ratings aren't based on developers selecting a particular age range. Instead, developers are asked to fill out a matrix of certain potentially objectionable content themes, and whether those themes appear in "infrequent/mild" form or "frequent/intense" form. The age rating is dependent on how developers fill out this form. Some infrequent violence or crude humor might get a "9+" or "12+" rating, while frequent violence or sexual content might get a "17+" rating. If an app contains none of these themes, it gets a "4+" rating.

The NRA and developer MEDL Mobile may have felt the game didn't really contain any violence at all since the in-game targets are inanimate objects in a virtual shooting range. That could explain why the app was originally submitted as having "no objectionable content" and ended up with a "4+" rating.

It's not clear whether it was Apple or the NRA who ultimately changed the rating to address these concerns. (Apple did not respond to our requests for comment.) Still, shooting 3D models of real guns at realistic targets—some of which have special areas for the head and heart, like those at actual shooting ranges—could certainly be interpreted as "realistic violence." And a "12+" rating, meaning the game is accessible to teens, seems like a reasonable age range to learn about gun safety. After all, kids this same age are already mowing down virtual human targets in games like Black Ops 2, despite that game's "M for Mature, 17+" rating.

Despite the rating change, some critics of NRA: Practice Range want the game banned, period. An online petition, which so far has over 1,800 signatures, calls on Apple to remove the game from the App Store.

"The National Rifle Association's new app NRA: Practice Range is an insult to the victims of gun violence, having been launched on the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting," the petition reads. "Out of respect for the victims and to signal Apple's support for common sense measures to help end gun violence, we call on you to rescind your approval of this shameless new product."

Violent video games are often cited as a cause of increased gun violence; even the NRA itself pointed to "vicious, violent video games" such as Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, and Splatterhouse in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings. And while the Obama administration has asked the CDC to study what effects violent video games may have on predilection to violence, so far there is little data to support a link between violent video games and actual gun violence.

Additionally, NRA: Practice Range claims to spread a little "common sense" about gun use, encouraging players to "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use," for instance. It doesn't seem logically consistent to ask Apple to ban NRA's game while allowing countless others—some of which use virtual people as targets—to stand. Despite the controversy, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will remove the app anytime soon.

Promoted Comments

I played Duck Hunt on my 8-bit Nintendo when I was a little kid. Don't remember the exact age, but it was young. Had the Nintendo Zapper controller that looked like a slightly-space-age handgun that I'd point at the TV and shoot with. As far as I can tell, this game is less violent than Duck Hunt. It certainly isn't more violent.

The only reason people are upset is because the NRA is involved, not because of the content of the game itself. And not liking a game's publisher is not a valid reason for increasing the recommended age of the game, or worse, removing the game from the app store entirely.

196 Reader Comments

If the mob find themselves in front of an average citizen with a gun, the citizen has the same chance to damage them as if he had trained, experienced police force in front of him.

Pro-gun?

English is not my first language but I think you misunderstood my sentence. What I was saying is that thinking that having average armed citizens can help stop crime is a delusion. Criminals are trained in the use of weapons and violence, like police is. The average citizen is not, point and shot works in videogames, but in real life, with your life threatend, little things like fear, stress, inability to think straight are bound to influence your weapon fu. In fact, more often than not, with an armed victim, what starts as robbery ends with the death of the victim.

If the mob find themselves in front of an average citizen with a gun, the citizen has the same chance to damage them as if he had trained, experienced police force in front of him.

Pro-gun?

English is not my first language but I think you misunderstood my sentence. What I was saying is that thinking that having average armed citizens can help stop crime is a delusion. Criminals are trained in the use of weapons and violence, like police is. The average citizen is not, point and shot works in videogames, but in real life, with your life threatend, little things like fear, stress, inability to think straight are bound to influence your weapon fu. In fact, more often than not, with an armed victim, what starts as robbery ends with the death of the victim.

I understand English isn't your first language, so I apologize for misunderstanding and being rude. However; It isn't a delusion at all. In fact, I have family members who only have training in regards to their handgun/conceal and carry permit who have been able to stop perpetrators; in both cases they were able to assess the situation, notify the authorities, and using their weapons help. Luckily, they never had to fire the weapon; as the saying goes, the truer form of valor is restraint.

Here are just a few examples where women have successfully protected themselves from intruders as the Police were not able to make it in time. Such is the norm as they cannot possibly be everywhere at once:

These are just a few stories just from my state, guns protect people and can save lives - in the correct hands. That doesn't mean that gun owners should be looking for trouble or attempting vigilante justice, it just means that it is a stop-gap where the Police fail - to no fault of their own.

Whenever some nut job murders their wife and kids with a hammer, nobody ever rages about Bob the Builder toys with real hammer action being sold to kids the next day.

This is just crazy.

Because hammers are designed for another purpose. What's a gun designed to do?

and... the argument against or for equality of the two is what?

The whole gun ban thing is stupid. Its doesn't matter what something was originally purposed to do.

Drunk drivers injure or kill more people annually then guns yet drunk drivers are not prohibted from buying a car, yet automobiles were never intended to be a weapon.

Hate focused speech and thought has sparked more violence or injury in the last 100 years than guns have caused violence or injury or death in the last 200 years (not including war time type combat settings), a whole sector of our society was injured or killed or opressed by hate speech and thought daily via slavery and the allowed continuance of hate groups. However, we don't stop people from making such hate speech or existing by removing or curtailing their rights to free speech, yet free speech was never intneded to be a weapon to cause intentional harm.

Bad medications or medical treatment kill or injure more people annually than guns (excluding war time type combat settings), yet we don't remove or curtail rights to practice medicine or produce and sell medications on a society wide basis and medications and medical treatment were never intended to kill or injure.

Smoking kills or injures more people world wide annually than guns have in the last 50 years (excluding war time type combat settings), yet we don't stop the number one product responsible for death from being sold.

The list goes on an on.. the point is you can't simply take one thing and try to equate it to another as a means of saying the other thing is bad and needs to be banned by pointing out its intended purpose.

Incidentally, you're mistaken if you think police are necessarily better trained firearms users than civilian firearms hobbyists. Regular police firearms qualification standards are not very strict because very little time is devoted to firearms training since there are so many other competing training needs, in addition to policework. Frankly, this is probably as it should be, since operating a firearm is a very small part of good law enforcement. (Specialists like SWAT, of course, are much better.) I've been a hobbyest shooter for some time now, and see policemen worried about making the standards come in for practice every one in a while, and unless they shoot for fun outside of work, they're mostly pretty poor shots. My cop friends complain that they don't get enough time or ammunition to train with, and will admit that they'd need more practice to get to the level they'd like to be at. Unfortunately, shooting is not like riding a bike--you need to use the skill or you lose it. Now, I recognize that many people who own a gun for defense don't practice or train whatsoever and there is no legal requirement to do so, except for a carry permit in some states. While I'm not in favor of bans, unlike many gun owners, I think requiring a license to buy firearms is not unreasonable, provide such a license is made available to anyone who passes both a background check and a rudimentary, police level, qualification. On the topic of the article, the NRA is by far the biggest advocate and supporter of firearms safety and training in the US and that's as much if not more a part of their mission than lobbying is. This "game" is a part of that, and should be lauded by those most concerned about the dangers of firearms.

Is gun safety in society only about accuratly hitting your target and knowing to always treat a gun as if loaded?

Or is it about also, and more importantly, knowing when to not use the weapon, how to identify people who are and are not threats, how to control a situation using only the correct amount of force the situation requires?

Drunk drivers injure or kill more people annually then guns yet drunk drivers are not prohibted from buying a car, yet automobiles were never intended to be a weapon.

They are prohibited from driving, however.

SaddleUp wrote:

Hate focused speech and thought has sparked more violence or injury in the last 100 years than guns have caused violence or death in the last 200 years (not including war time type combat settings), a whole sector of our society was injured or killed or opressed by hate speech and thought daily via slavery and the allowed continuance of hate groups. However, we don't stop people from making such hate speech or existing by removing or curtailing their rights to free speech, yet free speech was never intneded to be a weapon to cause intentional harm.

You said the magic words. 'free speech was never intneded to be a weapon'. And it actually does have limits ('fire' in a crowded theater)

SaddleUp wrote:

Bad medications or medical treatment kill or injure more people annually than guns have done in the last 50 years (excluding war time type combat settings), yet we don't remove or curtail rights to practice medicine or produce and sell medications on a society wide basis and medications and medical treatment was never intended to kill or injure.

Bad medications get removed from the market. Bad doctors lose their license. And you said the magic word again 'medications and medical treatment was never intended to kill or injure'

SaddleUp wrote:

Smoking kills or injures more people world wide annually than guns have in the last 50 years (excluding war time type combat settings), yet we don't stop the number one product responsible for death from being sold.

Actually banning tobacco wouldn't be a bad idea, or at least tax the crap out of it. Smoking is banned in many locations and access to it is restricted. Legalize a certain other plant while we're at it, it actually doesn't harm people.

You're right, the 'well X can kill people too' argument is ridiculous. But the reason it is ridiculous is precisely because the intention of the object in question matters. Those against license and registration of firearms also fail to note many of the items they use this argument on actually require licenses themselves.

I am pro gun-rights for all the reasons which are valid, and I will immediately dismiss any argument you make against me as invalid. I will then attack you personally an make several unjustified assumptions to do so.

Am I doin it rite? Seriously though, Ars readers are better than most, but I still don't see the point (aside, perhaps, from some emotional catharsis) of comment thread debates.

I make no claim as to where you got your ideas, I am merely speaking of what the NRA is supporting and pointing out this to most people it is wholly unsupportable.

I don't agree with everything the NRA or it's adherents say, but historically when governments have turned on their own people, one of the first things they have done is round up the privately owned guns. It's historically accurate.

There is plenty of evidence that there are both private organizations and many politicians that want to end private gun ownership, as well as a lot of politicians that simply see no value in private gun ownership and are willing to vote with those who want to ban it if it is to their advantage.

In general what the NRA supports is responsible gun ownership. They also support shooting sports such as hunting and target shooting. They also support personal defense. It's an organization of human beings and no human being is perfect, and I've found no other person I agree with 100% of the time, but I agree with the general principles of the NRA, and while their concerns sometimes sound overstated, especially when reported on second hand, they generally have solid basis in facts. Much of what they have to say makes a lot more sense if you understand how our right to keep and bear arms have been slowly chipped away at over the decades. If the NRA seems unwilling to compromise, it is with very good reason. Before 1986 automatic weapons weren't illegal to own under federal law. Actually owning one built before 1986 isn't illegal it just requires paying for the tax stamp. Why the tax stamp? Because at one time congress understood the 2nd Amendment to mean that they couldn't ban automatic weapons, so instead they put on them what was at the time a prohibitively high tax, which they felt they could get by the Supreme Court at the time. In 1986 Congress felt the time had come where they could get a ban on them by the Supreme Court.

I have no interest in owning an automatic weapon. I couldn't afford the ammo to shoot one unless it shot .22 long rifle. However, it is an example of how our gun rights have been slowly chipped away at.

The farce that was the assault weapons ban was another example. It banned what were essentially cosmetic features on guns. It was mostly effective on banning the import of inexpensive surplus military weapons, and therefore raising the price of owning guns. Even with making guns more expensive for the poor, and there is a lot of crime among the poor, a decade of the assault weapons ban had no real effect on crime. It did however create a legal precedence of the courts allowing additional limitations on gun ownership.

For you to say that the NRA's positions are wholly unsupportable I can only think you are speaking from ignorance. I suggest you should make a little effort to inform yourself. I find that most people who support gun control know very little about the subject.

I don't agree with everything the NRA or it's adherents say, but historically when governments have turned on their own people, one of the first things they have done is round up the privately owned guns. It's historically accurate .

Maybe it is historically accurate but it is meaningless too, because you are talking of totally different social and political conditions. Thinking that a 2013 administration want to contro guns to go dictactorship style is totally paranoid.

I think the problem with this game is that it is targeted at 4 year old children. I don't have children, but I don't think I would want my children to learn how guns work, how to shoot with a shotgun or how a specific gun looks like. The purpose of Duck Hunt was not shooting or killing ducks, it was to interact with the game in another way, not using the NES control pad. As far as I remember, it did not have different guns or realistic guns for that matter.I am completely anti-guns, I think there is not one good reason for having a gun in an urban environment, however I don't think banning anything solves our problem, games, much as anything else, just need to have the appropriate rating.

Nonsense. This app on no way "targeted at 4 year old children. I don't have children, but I don't think I would wa". The rest of your vapid comments need no specific response as they are prima facia unworthy of further discussion.

Which is why you carry. If the mob faces a fight every time they try their shenanigans, they can't get a foothold. And armed and capable citizenry is extremely resistant to crime.

LOL Maybe you watched too much chuck movies my friend If the mob find themselves in front of an average citizen with a gun, the citizen has the same chance to damage them as if he had trained, experienced police force in front of him.

Most police are about as well trained as serious shooters, as far as marksmanship goes. Their extra training is in the legal part.

Quote:

If it's true that in your nation of freedom 9 people out of 10 posses a gun why you have the highest crime rate of all western countries? The more murders? Why I never read news about americans killing thousands of delinquents per year, avoiding rapes, robberies, thefts and so on?

9 out of 10 people don't possess a gun. As best I recall, about 1:6 or 1:7. And for the other, it's because most people don't realize their own ability to resist; similarly, when it does happen, the media often casts it as the defender's fault.

Quote:

It seems to me, that your guns are totally useless, except for people that make money selling them, and to load a bit some empty ego that need a piece of cold steel in their pants to deem himself a man.

It seems to me that your opinion is worthless, as it consists of misinformation and ad-hom attacks.

I make no claim as to where you got your ideas, I am merely speaking of what the NRA is supporting and pointing out this to most people it is wholly unsupportable.

For you to say that the NRA's positions are wholly unsupportable I can only think you are speaking from ignorance. I suggest you should make a little effort to inform yourself. I find that most people who support gun control know very little about the subject.

First of all, I am a gun owning, former hunter and military veteran. I grew up in a semi rural town where hunting was common and more often than not pickup trucks had gun racks. That is my background and despite still owning guns and occasionally target shooting, I cannot with any good conscience support the NRA. Precisely because of their positions.

OK, so let's talk about the NRA's positions then.

Position 1. Video games

Many have rushed to the defense of the NRA’s shooting app saying it doesn’t promote violence. And these people are correct in that it really is a nothing application and won’t cause anyone to do anything.

However to me boycotts and petitions are nothing like government bans or restrictions. I mention this because the NRA *IS* ready to support a government ban on “violent video games” and is basically on record saying as much.

So the issue for me isn’t this app, but the NRA itself and the irony of them publishing a shooting game (however comparably inoffensive) while being ready to ban video games. Of course there is no valid research correlating video games to gun deaths.

2. Concealed carry laws

In many of Robert Heinlein’s books, people open carried weapons at all times. I am not sure I am ready for that (think drunks in bars), but it is still better than the NRA’s position on concealed weapons.

Concealed weapons don’t discourage crime. Openly displayed weapons can (under the right circumstances) but concealed weapons only get people into trouble.

Think about it, why would you carry around a weapon thinking you might have to shoot the people around you, yet not want people to realize you are armed? And if you aren’t serious about using it, why are you carrying it? You make yourself no more likely to avoid trouble by carrying a concealed weapon.

Worse, you typically can’t defend yourself from a real threat. If someone armed has the drop on you, there is a very slim chance you can pull out your weapon and do anything before being killed. If you don’t believe me, try getting two squirt guns and giving one to say a 9 year old. Then put yours in an inside jacket pocket and ask the 9 year old to stick you up. Then, see how many time you can pull out your squirt gun and fire before getting soaked. Frankly even if all they had was a baseball bat, you would still be hard pressed to win.

Now I have known people with concealed weapons and heard all their stories about how they defended themselves. First off, I live in the same area as them and for the life of me I can’t figure out how they had so many run ins with criminals while I have had literally NONE, and in such dangerous places and a video arcade next to a university in the middle of the day! Really think about it, how often have you had a run in with a criminal? To me it seemed MUCH more likely that they just liked the thrill of flashing their gun and being a big shot. So when you hear stories about this yourself, think how often you have actually be mugged or attacked.

More on this in my next point!

Further, some people go around literally thinking they are in some way helping me out because they carry concealed weapons onto my property without tell me. They think somehow taking a weapon without permission into my home or business makes me safer and complain about businesses that have signs saying “no weapons allowed”. I will handle my own security arrangements, thank you very much.

3. Stand your ground laws (or shoot first and ask question later)

The NRA support for these laws is probably about the worst of the bunch. The statistics on these are just staggering, the number of times person shot was actually armed is very low. This shouldn’t be a surprise BTW, as discussed above, if the other person is actually armed your chances of success are very low.

Also look at how many criminals get off using this law (drug dealers for example). Heck, drug dealers may well be right when they claim to have felt threatened.

Consider the Travon Martin case, I firmly believe that had George Zimmerman approached him with an openly brandished weapon it would have ended differently. George might be on trial for assault, but at least not murder.

To be clear, I am not encouraging people to point guns at strangers in their neighborhood, but pointing out that the very notion that someone not trained as a law enforcement agent is going to handle a situation well is very deeply flawed. Likewise comparing Joe Average with a gun to the Secret Service Agents protecting the Presidents kids, or the threat to your kids vs. his, is basically a deception.

4. Gun Safety and research

As a result, so long as the NRA is perpetuating myths about self defense, they are NOT improving gun safety. They are if anything making it worse. And as the icing on the cake, they block research on it.

5. The Second Amendment.

The funny thing is I don’t support the assault weapon ban, or even the automatic weapon ban. If I could get rid of anything, it would be handguns and concealed weapons. 85% of all death are caused by handguns. I can imagine that if a deranged person couldn’t have a rifle they would use a pistol, the reverse is not as true about a mugger. So yes, sign me up for only criminals having concealed weapons.

You speak of having your rights chipped away, but frankly you gave most of them up willingly. After all, it says ARMS, not GUNS. Do you support personal Weaponized Anthrax, Chemical Weapons, dirty bombs for the average person? Most people say no, because someone can do too much damage with them to no good purpose. So the debate isn’t about if some arms need to be banned, but which ones.

You are worse than Feinstein and you make Ben Franklin roll in his grave. You are more than willing to kick other gun owners under the bus as long as your hunting rifles aren't touched. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are worse than Feinstein and you make Ben Franklin roll in his grave. You are more than willing to kick other gun owners under the bus as long as your hunting rifles aren't touched. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That seems more like a personal attack than anything else but....

1. In the founders time pistols were much less common than today and weapons were typically carried openly. Based on literature I have read it seems that carrying a concealed weapon was typically associated with being a criminal or other ne'er do wells.

2. Looks like the NRA policies have been losing ground year after year. So I will be drinking a toast in your and the NRA's honor as each new gun law is passed. Or the NRA could wise up and try to start being sensible. Oh well.

I observe that most comments that are disliked seems to be disliked by people that love guns.Also, if i read mentally challenged people are the problems it really gets over the top.Since when are mentally challenged people are the problem. Why is this discussion going on stereotypes anyway.Whatever the case, ask yourself what the purpose of that game is. A game that shows just a shooting range is different than a game that kills virtual chickens. Even though the main act is killing, there is a difference.But you can't argue an argument that says guns don't kill people i assume.

In many of Robert Heinlein’s books, people open carried weapons at all times. I am not sure I am ready for that (think drunks in bars), but it is still better than the NRA’s position on concealed weapons.

Concealed weapons don’t discourage crime. Openly displayed weapons can (under the right circumstances) but concealed weapons only get people into trouble.

Think about it, why would you carry around a weapon thinking you might have to shoot the people around you, yet not want people to realize you are armed? And if you aren’t serious about using it, why are you carrying it? You make yourself no more likely to avoid trouble by carrying a concealed weapon.

Worse, you typically can’t defend yourself from a real threat. If someone armed has the drop on you, there is a very slim chance you can pull out your weapon and do anything before being killed. If you don’t believe me, try getting two squirt guns and giving one to say a 9 year old. Then put yours in an inside jacket pocket and ask the 9 year old to stick you up. Then, see how many time you can pull out your squirt gun and fire before getting soaked. Frankly even if all they had was a baseball bat, you would still be hard pressed to win.

Now I have known people with concealed weapons and heard all their stories about how they defended themselves. First off, I live in the same area as them and for the life of me I can’t figure out how they had so many run ins with criminals while I have had literally NONE, and in such dangerous places and a video arcade next to a university in the middle of the day! Really think about it, how often have you had a run in with a criminal? To me it seemed MUCH more likely that they just liked the thrill of flashing their gun and being a big shot. So when you hear stories about this yourself, think how often you have actually be mugged or attacked.

More on this in my next point!

Further, some people go around literally thinking they are in some way helping me out because they carry concealed weapons onto my property without tell me. They think somehow taking a weapon without permission into my home or business makes me safer and complain about businesses that have signs saying “no weapons allowed”. I will handle my own security arrangements, thank you very much.

3. Stand your ground laws (or shoot first and ask question later)

The NRA support for these laws is probably about the worst of the bunch. The statistics on these are just staggering, the number of times person shot was actually armed is very low. This shouldn’t be a surprise BTW, as discussed above, if the other person is actually armed your chances of success are very low.

Also look at how many criminals get off using this law (drug dealers for example). Heck, drug dealers may well be right when they claim to have felt threatened.

Consider the Travon Martin case, I firmly believe that had George Zimmerman approached him with an openly brandished weapon it would have ended differently. George might be on trial for assault, but at least not murder.

To be clear, I am not encouraging people to point guns at strangers in their neighborhood, but pointing out that the very notion that someone not trained as a law enforcement agent is going to handle a situation well is very deeply flawed. Likewise comparing Joe Average with a gun to the Secret Service Agents protecting the Presidents kids, or the threat to your kids vs. his, is basically a deception.

Concealed carry is preferred mostly because grabbing an openly carried firearm is much easier than one you don't know is there. If you'll notice any GOOD law enforcement will have his hand on his weapon or keep it AWAY from a person he's talking to. Also, A fair fight to the police is at least 2 on 1. You don't usually have that out alone, nor do you know which person around you is likely to go for your gun.

As for stand your ground, it prevents pieces of human trash from suing you or you going to jail for defending yourself. As for those breaking in to my house not having a gun, I'm not going to ask them, and definitely not going to trust their answer, they are the one in the wrong, why is it up to ME to take the chance? They don't want to be shot, they shouldn't be committing crimes. I have a child, I am not going to risk them or my wife or myself getting hurt just because it wouldn't be fair for me to have a gun and not the criminal piece of trash.

You have every right to ban weapons on your premises, property rights are just as important as rights to defend yourself.

You are worse than Feinstein and you make Ben Franklin roll in his grave. You are more than willing to kick other gun owners under the bus as long as your hunting rifles aren't touched. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That seems more like a personal attack than anything else but....

1. In the founders time pistols were much less common than today and weapons were typically carried openly. Based on literature I have read it seems that carrying a concealed weapon was typically associated with being a criminal or other ne'er do wells.

2. Looks like the NRA policies have been losing ground year after year. So I will be drinking a toast in your and the NRA's honor as each new gun law is passed. Or the NRA could wise up and try to start being sensible. Oh well.

The NRA already won. The Supreme Court ruled that the handgun ban of Washington DC was unconstitutional.

That ruling pretty much makes any sort of meaningful gun control legislation impossible; you cannot ban guns. You can make people register their firearms, but that's about it. Trying to restrict what type of personal arms they can carry is pretty much impossible unless the personal arm is highly inherently dangerous (i.e. an explosive device).

After they ruled the obvious (that you know, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that), that was that.

If you are advocating infringing people's right to bear arms, and all this proposed legislation banning firearms does so, then you are a moron who is wasting the taxpayer's money because the law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

The NRA already won. The Supreme Court ruled that the handgun ban of Washington DC was unconstitutional.

That ruling pretty much makes any sort of meaningful gun control legislation impossible; you cannot ban guns. You can make people register their firearms, but that's about it. Trying to restrict what type of personal arms they can carry is pretty much impossible unless the personal arm is highly inherently dangerous (i.e. an explosive device).

After they ruled the obvious (that you know, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that), that was that.

If you are advocating infringing people's right to bear arms, and all this proposed legislation banning firearms does so, then you are a moron who is wasting the taxpayer's money because the law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

In a 5-4 decision. It is perfectly possible for it to be reversed on another similar issue. And of course you can ban guns, fully automatic weapons are still effectively restricted. Indeed the decision itself said explicitly that weapon CAN be banned (as I pointed out) and more or less said that part of the reason they were striking down the handgun ban had to do with social norms. Aka, society largely accepts handguns right now. That doesn’t make them safe or sensible BTW.

The NRA already won. The Supreme Court ruled that the handgun ban of Washington DC was unconstitutional.

That ruling pretty much makes any sort of meaningful gun control legislation impossible; you cannot ban guns. You can make people register their firearms, but that's about it. Trying to restrict what type of personal arms they can carry is pretty much impossible unless the personal arm is highly inherently dangerous (i.e. an explosive device).

After they ruled the obvious (that you know, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that), that was that.

If you are advocating infringing people's right to bear arms, and all this proposed legislation banning firearms does so, then you are a moron who is wasting the taxpayer's money because the law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

In a 5-4 decision. It is perfectly possible for it to be reversed on another similar issue. And of course you can ban guns, fully automatic weapons are still effectively restricted. Indeed the decision itself said explicitly that weapon CAN be banned (as I pointed out) and more or less said that part of the reason they were striking down the handgun ban had to do with social norms. Aka, society largely accepts handguns right now. That doesn’t make them safe or sensible BTW.

The NRA already won. The Supreme Court ruled that the handgun ban of Washington DC was unconstitutional.

That ruling pretty much makes any sort of meaningful gun control legislation impossible; you cannot ban guns. You can make people register their firearms, but that's about it. Trying to restrict what type of personal arms they can carry is pretty much impossible unless the personal arm is highly inherently dangerous (i.e. an explosive device).

After they ruled the obvious (that you know, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that), that was that.

If you are advocating infringing people's right to bear arms, and all this proposed legislation banning firearms does so, then you are a moron who is wasting the taxpayer's money because the law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

In a 5-4 decision. It is perfectly possible for it to be reversed on another similar issue. And of course you can ban guns, fully automatic weapons are still effectively restricted. Indeed the decision itself said explicitly that weapon CAN be banned (as I pointed out) and more or less said that part of the reason they were striking down the handgun ban had to do with social norms. Aka, society largely accepts handguns right now. That doesn’t make them safe or sensible BTW.

But most importantly, if your reason for supporting these laws is only because the Supreme Court does, I am not sure what to tell you.

If you don't seem to understand the constitution and rulings on it, I don't know what to tell you. You are either a troll or too stupid to keep talking to.

From Wikipedia "Disctrict of Columbia vs. Heller"

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

_____OR in English

Some weapons can be banned Constitutionally.

The handgun ban was overturned because Americans normally choose it for home defense, aka society largely accepts handguns right now.

Of course, didn't someone say something about what if everyone walked off a cliff?

One of us is too stupid to keep talking too. At least you didn’t' say that it was OK for everyone to have a nuclear reactor (heard of a place called Iran?). Or that carrying weapon openly would just invite people to take it from you and shoot you (vs. just getting a gun of their own and shooting first). I do forget, were you one of the ones who thinks guns aren't largely designed to kill?

For F sake, do any of you actually know anything? It would be nice for once to get an answer not riddled with errors.

In regard to nuclear reactors, that argument is stupid, as are the people who make it on either side, in fact, my only thoughts on them is that the us has no right telling any other country what they can or can't use and yeah I'm talking Iran.

Open carry is ridiculous, it makes your gun easier to grab, if someone wants to, they can get it from your holster much easier than an iwb or other concealed holster, that is just coin sense. Also I don't need to broadcast to every panty waist little bitch that I'm carrying, I don't need to hear their bullshit or worry about causing them stress.

Carrying laws are up to states, anyway. The federal government usurps enough powers from the states as it is.

As for their design, it doesn't matter what their design is for, they have many legal and safe uses, if you want to punish people who are innocent for the crimes of others, then you are completely irrational.

The problem with liberals is that it isn't enough to not like or choose not to use something, they wan to make everyone else stop doing it too through threat of violence.

In regard to nuclear reactors, that argument is stupid, as are the people who make it on either side, in fact, my only thoughts on them is that the us has no right telling any other country what they can or can't use and yeah I'm talking Iran.

Open carry is ridiculous, it makes your gun easier to grab, if someone wants to, they can get it from your holster much easier than an iwb or other concealed holster, that is just coin sense. Also I don't need to broadcast to every panty waist little bitch that I'm carrying, I don't need to hear their bullshit or worry about causing them stress.

Carrying laws are up to states, anyway. The federal government usurps enough powers from the states as it is.

As for their design, it doesn't matter what their design is for, they have many legal and safe uses, if you want to punish people who are innocent for the crimes of others, then you are completely irrational.

The problem with liberals is that it isn't enough to not like or choose not to use something, they wan to make everyone else stop doing it too through threat of violence.

There are plenty of Conservatives who are more than happy to force others to do what they want through violence. And plenty of Liberals who have a very Libertarian bent. Also, all laws are ultimatly enforced by violence. There is much more to the world than Red vs. Blue.

Also, I am fairy sure the Cops have largely figrured out how to open carry safely. I bet there is training on it. BTW I am not being sarcastic.

Whenever some nut job murders their wife and kids with a hammer, nobody ever rages about Bob the Builder toys with real hammer action being sold to kids the next day.

This is just crazy.

Because hammers are designed for another purpose. What's a gun designed to do?

A gun is designed to accelerate a projectile. It's uses vary from paper target shooting (an Olympic sport), hunting, plinking, steel target shooting, western reenactments, police duties, and warfare. It is rarely (compared to its legitimate uses) used for the illegal purpose of hurting another human.

A lot of people confuse what something is designed to do with what we use it for - they are different concepts.

Whenever some nut job murders their wife and kids with a hammer, nobody ever rages about Bob the Builder toys with real hammer action being sold to kids the next day.

This is just crazy.

Because hammers are designed for another purpose. What's a gun designed to do?

To shoot delicious wildlife?....

Correct. A gun is designed to kill.

No, a gun is designed to fire bits of metal at a high velocity. Whether you use that to kill or to shoot tin cans, watermelons, and paper targets is up to the user. The gun doesn't care.

Guns were invented to further long distance warfare in the 12th century, the fact they can be used recreationally has no bearing on the intent of their design. They are deadly weapons. They won't stop you at the airport if you have one because they're afraid you're going to shoot pigeons or soda cans.

(Edit: this is just clarification because the whole point really has no bearing on this app. The app prolly won't be pulled, but the age restrictions should be on there because frankly a 4 year old has no business with a gun, fake or not.)

The intention of the the original designers may have been to use them for warfare. They don't stop you at the airport if they're in your cargo hold luggage - because they know that firearms are almost entirely used for sport, hunting, whatever and are legal to own and transport.

But yes they'll stop you from taking it onboard a plane's passenger area. They will also stop you from taking on nail clippers, nail files, screwdrivers, cork screws, knives, etc ad nauseam - because ignoring their benign designs, they can be used as a weapon (except for nail clippers - I just don't get that).

In regard to nuclear reactors, that argument is stupid, as are the people who make it on either side, in fact, my only thoughts on them is that the us has no right telling any other country what they can or can't use and yeah I'm talking Iran.

Open carry is ridiculous, it makes your gun easier to grab, if someone wants to, they can get it from your holster much easier than an iwb or other concealed holster, that is just coin sense. Also I don't need to broadcast to every panty waist little bitch that I'm carrying, I don't need to hear their bullshit or worry about causing them stress.

Carrying laws are up to states, anyway. The federal government usurps enough powers from the states as it is.

As for their design, it doesn't matter what their design is for, they have many legal and safe uses, if you want to punish people who are innocent for the crimes of others, then you are completely irrational.

The problem with liberals is that it isn't enough to not like or choose not to use something, they wan to make everyone else stop doing it too through threat of violence.

There are plenty of Conservatives who are more than happy to force others to do what they want through violence. And plenty of Liberals who have a very Libertarian bent. Also, all laws are ultimatly enforced by violence. There is much more to the world than Red vs. Blue.

Also, I am fairy sure the Cops have largely figrured out how to open carry safely. I bet there is training on it. BTW I am not being sarcastic.

And I addressed that above. A police officer if you'll note in videos of traffic stops will usually either have their hand on their gun or if talking to someone will stand with their body between the person they are talking to and their gun. As a police officer yes, you are pretty much aware of when you are In a situation someone may go for your gun, I've received that training. Also a police officer usually has a partner there to aid him. You, on the other hand, do not know if someone will try to grab your gun, and having your hand on it at all times tends to freak people out, I had a military spouse make a complaint they felt threatened the military police member had a hand on their gun just to maintain positive control as he walked through a bus so it didn't catch on anything. Can you imagine how propel would feel if random non-law enforcement walked around with their hand in their holster?

And I never said I was red either, conservatives are just as big a bunch of fascists, but we're talking abou gun control, not suppression of the first fourth or fifth amendment.

The concealed carry is more to not make people uncomfortable than anything else, I firmly support gun rights and believe restrictions on any small arms should be lifted, but I roll my eyes when I see some yahoo with his gun strapped on the outside for everyone to see, it is most times more for attention than anything else, because I can assure you, I'll have my gun out of my waistband as fast or faster than they'll unsnap their holster.

I get the whole not making people nervous thing, but I think we can agree, only an openly displayed weapon actually prevents violence. So I would think it is better if people are a little nervous. Things go wrong too often with concealed carry to no good purpose. (Travon Martin likely being one notable example).

And, well, if you think you really need a gun, taking the kind of active responsibility a Cop does really isn't so bad.

Most limited government types want limited government for things they don't like, but plenty for things they do. Just start asking about stuff like, control of boarders, woman’s right to choose, marriage laws and the morality of forcing someone to pay for a war they oppose and you typically see how limited their view is on the limits of government.

I don't think many "limited government types" care at all about people renting rooms (boarders), although many care about illegal immigration and having a strong military - neither of which infringe on the rights of legitimate citizens. "Limited government" does not mean "no government" (since you apparently didn't understand this point the first time I made it).

As to the rest of your points, they aren't relevant to me so I won't address them. I think you'd be surprised how many conservatives/libertarians fall into my camp. I will say that the government getting involved in a religious issue (marriage) in the first place was a mistake. There should not be government "marriage licenses", nor should there be government rewards for a particular marital status. Any particular religion should be free to define what "marriage" is within the beliefs of its members. That is called "freedom of religion" in case you were wondering.

Quote:

Also our Founding Fathers opposed a standing army to prevent military adventurism.

When you have a nation where virtually 100% of the population is proficient with the military weapons of the day, that is much more practical. That is in fact one of the under-recognized benefits of AR rifle ownership, that new military recruits may already be proficient with them.

In modern times the breadth of military technology requires specialization and lots of training - that is something that's quite different from the late 1700s.

Quote:

Finally Jefferson felt the Constitution should be rewritten every 30 years or so because he didn't think the rules that applied to his day would be the same in ours.

Feel free to find an actual quote that supports your position. Here is one that seems particularly relevant today:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which iswrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the factsthey misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are notwarned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit ofresistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right asto the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lostin a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed fromtime to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.It is its natural manure.

That strikes to the heart of the 2nd Amendment debate going on right now!

Quote:

So some people really believe in limited government, most just use it as a tactic to oppose a specific thing they don’t like.

I believe in an extremely limited government (particularly Federal government) compared with the monstrosity we have today. Again, that does not in any way equal "no government".

1. In the founders time pistols were much less common than today and weapons were typically carried openly. Based on literature I have read it seems that carrying a concealed weapon was typically associated with being a criminal or other ne'er do wells.

Times do change. What you're missing about concealed carry is at least twofold:

1. Concealed carry is a deterrent to crime even if no one present is actually carrying. If you're planning a liquor store holdup (for instance) where CCW permits are available, you have to consider that anyone in the store might be carrying, including the owner.

2. Open carry is flawed in that a criminal will know you're armed, and you'll be the first one targeted if weapons are used. With concealed carry, you have a much better chance of surprising the criminal, and either subduing him or perforating him as required.

Quote:

2. Looks like the NRA policies have been losing ground year after year. So I will be drinking a toast in your and the NRA's honor as each new gun law is passed. Or the NRA could wise up and try to start being sensible. Oh well.

Wow, you're so clueless as to be actually comical. Take a look at this map:

Note that in "shall issue" and "no restriction" states it's quite easy to get a CCW permit. Isn't it funny that New York, Chicago and other areas with almost no CCW availability are notorious for high violent crime rates? In Chicago, 532 people were murdered in 2012. I wonder how many of those lives concealed handguns could have saved, either in the hand of the victim, or in the hand of a bystander.

Your statements about the founders are as near as I can tell are... ...correct. And of course that was my point. You had invoked "what the founders would have wanted" and I pointed out that there are any number of things we are doing today they did NOT do in there day. Such comparisons are hard to make and since times DO change, as the Founders well knew, it is hard to say for sure what they would think about today's issues.

Still on the military thing, it is still worth reflecting that we have gone from NO standing military to spending the most on the military, bar none. And to a substantial degree. And now that we have this large military, seems we keep using it (Iraq).

My issue with, though you may prove to be an exception as I stated, "limited government" types is they are nothing of the kind. There never seems to be a guiding principle other than "well the government should do *that* because I think it needs to." and "but not that because I don't consider that a problem".

Let me tell you what I think about this issue, you make actually like it, yes really. -power should devolve to the lowest level necessary to implement it *effectively*, thus the individual in most cases-.As for the NRA gaining or losing ground, I am mostly talking about public opinion. They are far more disliked today than in the past.

As Washington prepares for a political battle over the Obama White House's proposals to curb gun violence after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the National Rifle Association is more popular than the entertainment industry.

Forty-one percent of adults see the NRA -- the nation's top gun lobby -- in a positive light, while 34 percent view it in a negative light.

By comparison, just 24 percent have positive feelings about the entertainment industry, and 39 percent have negative ones.

So, fully 2/3 of adults have either a favorable or neutral view of the NRA. That sounds about right to me...

Quite telling, the NRA is also more popular than castor oil. What does Hollywood have to do with anything?

Still I get you, you mean nearly 3/5th of all adults have a negative or neutral view of the NRA. When you poll people on their support for laws, I don't think you get almost 2/3rds support or neutral on the NRA view, so don't be so quick to put neutral in the NRA camp.

In any event, I am fairly sure in my youth the numbers for the NRA were much higher (can't seem to find any though). I think these trends can be traced back directly to the policies supported by the NRA.

Whenever some nut job murders their wife and kids with a hammer, nobody ever rages about Bob the Builder toys with real hammer action being sold to kids the next day.

This is just crazy.

Because hammers are designed for another purpose. What's a gun designed to do?

Kill, obviously. However, as to the purposes of having the gun:1. Sport - some people like shooting paper targets or hunting.2. Ego. Having a gun can make you feel like more of a macho man.3. Comfort. Makes you feel safe.4. Self-protection against criminals.5. Fighting back or resisting against a foreign invader.6. Fighting back or resisting against a totalitarian government.7. Committing violent crimes.8. Committing a massacre.

No. 7 is performed primarily with illegal guns. No. 8 might be better defended against with armed security guards and a general public that is also armed. If some of the teachers at that school had guns then there'd be fewer dead kids. In my high school we had an armed security guard and a few of the teachers brought their personal handguns with them to school. My school was never the target of a shooting, and there was never any problem with the weapons. I just thought it was cool and felt a bit more safe.